Scientific America Shows Liberal and Anti-Creationist Bias

A recent article in Scientific America speaks volumes
on the attitude of the publication towards any one that does not see the world
the way they do. While the article is as hard on liberal the author sees
anti-science as conservatives, article shows a clear liberal bias, It starts out
the second paragraph with "We are well aware of the Republican war on science"
as though the notion that Republican specifically conservative Republican are
anti-science. He goes on site an anti-Republican book and anti-Intelligent
Design book to support the claim. So the bias in the article is blatantly
obvious right from the start.

The author then sites a A 2012
Gallup poll showing how Republican and Democrat views on Young Earth
Creation and Global warming.

Republican

Democrat

God created humans in their present form
within the last 10,000 years'

58

41

Earth is getting warmer.

49

81

He then attacks opposition to fetal stem cell
research as "early-stage embryos a moral standing that is higher
than that of adults suffering from debilitating diseases
potentially curable through stem cells." While totally ignoring
the fact that the same conservatives fully support adult stem
cell research, an area of study that has produced more results
the fetal stem cell research.

In any case the author of the article uses
opposition to evolution and global warm to declare any one who
holds those positions to be anti-science. In short he equates
disagreement with interpretations of data by a majority of
scientists as being anti-science. He totally ignores the fact
that there are degreed practicing published scientists that
disagree with Global Warming, an old Earth and microbe to man
evolution and do so on scientific grounds. There are legitimate
scientific reasons to question Global
Warming and particular man caused Global Warming such as the
warming trend observed on Mar. Further more the politicalization
of Global Warming causes legitimate reasons to question the
scientific integrity of process.

The point is that the article implies that
Global Warming, an old Earth and microbe to man evolution are
the only scientific interpretations of available data and
declares that disagreeing with those interpretations is
anti-science. Since disagreement of interpretation of data is
fundamental to legitimate science it is the view of the author
and by publishing it the view of Scientific America that is
anti-science because it has the net affect of shutting down
debate on the interpretation of data. It is clear from the end
of the article that he thinks the those who oppose evolution and
climate change should be eliminated from the debate altogether.